COMPARISON OF DEXMEDETOMIDINE AND MIDAZOLAM FOR INTRA-OPERATIVE SEDATION IN TOTAL INTRAVENOUS ANESTHESIA (TIVA) IN CHILDREN UNDERGOING INGUINAL HERNIA REPAIR
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54112/bcsrj.v2024i1.1449Keywords:
Dexmedetomidine, Midazolam, Pediatric Sedation, Inguinal Hernia Repair, Ramsay Sedation Scale, Hemodynamic Stability, Recovery TimeAbstract
Effective intra-operative sedation is critical in pediatric surgeries to ensure patient comfort, hemodynamic stability, and efficient recovery. This study compared the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine and midazolam for intra-operative sedation in children undergoing inguinal hernia repair at Sheikh Zayed Medical College/Hospital, Rahim Yar Khan. Objective: To evaluate and compare sedation quality, hemodynamic stability, recovery time, and adverse events associated with dexmedetomidine and midazolam in pediatric patients undergoing inguinal hernia repair. Methods: This randomized controlled trial included 80 pediatric patients aged 2–12 years, randomly assigned to receive dexmedetomidine (Group D, n=40) or midazolam (Group M, n=40). Sedation depth was assessed using the Ramsay Sedation Scale (RSS) at intervals during surgery. Hemodynamic parameters, recovery time, and adverse events such as bradycardia, hypotension, oxygen desaturation, and apnea were recorded. Data were analyzed using SPSS version 26, with a p-value ≤0.05 considered statistically significant. Results: Sedation scores were significantly higher in Group D (mean RSS 4.5 ± 0.3) compared to Group M (3.8 ± 0.4, p<0.001). Group D demonstrated better hemodynamic stability, with a lower mean heart rate (85.2 ± 10.5 beats/min) than Group M (90.8 ± 11.2 beats/min, p=0.048), though with a slightly higher incidence of bradycardia (25% vs. 7.5%, p=0.032). Recovery time was significantly shorter in Group D (12.4 ± 3.2 minutes) compared to Group M (16.7 ± 4.1 minutes, p<0.001). Adverse events, including oxygen desaturation and apnea, were minimal and comparable between groups. Conclusion: Dexmedetomidine provides superior sedation, better hemodynamic stability, and faster recovery compared to midazolam in pediatric patients undergoing inguinal hernia repair, with minimal adverse events. These findings support the use of dexmedetomidine as a safer and more effective sedative alternative in pediatric surgical settings.
Downloads
References
Rizvi SA, Naqvi SA, Hussain Z, et al. Pediatric urology in Pakistan: Challenges and outcomes. J Pediatr Urol. 2021; 17(4):352–358. doi:10.1016/j.jpurol.2021.02.007.
Sheikh A, Aslam A, Niaz F. Pediatric anesthesia challenges in resource-limited settings. Pak J Med Sci. 2020; 36(6):1263–1268. doi:10.12669/pjms.36.6.2559.
Belleville JP, Ward DS, Bloor BC, et al. Effects of intravenous dexmedetomidine in humans. Anesthesiology. 1992; 77(6):1125–1133. Doi: 10.1097/00000542-199212000-00013.
Koroglu A, Demirbilek S, Teksan H, et al. Sedative, hemodynamic and respiratory effects of dexmedetomidine in children undergoing MRI. Br J Anaesth. 2005; 94(6):821–824. doi:10.1093/bja/aei132.
Mahmoud M, Mason KP. Dexmedetomidine: Review, update, and future considerations of pediatric perioperative and periprocedural applications. Anesth Analg. 2015; 121(6):1707–1718. doi:10.1213/ANE.0000000000000890.
Pestieau SR, Quezado ZM, Johnson YJ, et al. The optimal dose of dexmedetomidine for postoperative sedation in pediatric patients after tonsillectomy and adenoidectomy. J Clin Anesth. 2011; 23(4):305–310. doi:10.1016/j.jclinane.2010.09.003.
Bajwa SJ, Kaur J. Clinical profile of dexmedetomidine in anesthesia and intensive care medicine: A review. Indian J Anaesth. 2011; 55(3):303–309. doi:10.4103/0019-5049.82678.
Choudhary SK, Saini S, Sinha A. Comparative evaluation of dexmedetomidine versus midazolam for intra-operative sedation in pediatric patients: A randomized controlled trial. J Clin Diagn Res. 2020; 14(3):1–5. doi:10.7860/JCDR/2020/43254.13574
Koroglu A, Demirbilek S, Teksan H, et al. Sedative, hemodynamic and respiratory effects of dexmedetomidine in children undergoing MRI. Br J Anaesth. 2005; 94(6):821–824. doi:10.1093/bja/aei132.
Mahmoud M, Mason KP. Dexmedetomidine: Review, update, and future considerations of pediatric perioperative and periprocedural applications. Anesth Analg. 2015; 121(6):1707–1718. doi:10.1213/ANE.0000000000000890.
Choudhary SK, Saini S, Sinha A. Comparative evaluation of dexmedetomidine versus midazolam for intra-operative sedation in pediatric patients: A randomized controlled trial. J Clin Diagn Res. 2020; 14(3):1–5. doi:10.7860/JCDR/2020/43254.13574.
Pestieau SR, Quezado ZM, Johnson YJ, et al. The optimal dose of dexmedetomidine for postoperative sedation in pediatric patients after tonsillectomy and adenoidectomy. J Clin Anesth. 2011; 23(4):305–310. doi:10.1016/j.jclinane.2010.09.003.
Bajwa SJ, Kaur J. Clinical profile of dexmedetomidine in anesthesia and intensive care medicine: A review. Indian J Anaesth. 2011; 55(3):303–309. doi:10.4103/0019-5049.82678.
Belleville JP, Ward DS, Bloor BC, et al. Effects of intravenous dexmedetomidine in humans. Anesthesiology. 1992; 77(6):1125–1133. Doi: 10.1097/00000542-199212000-00013.
Ullah M, Iqbal M, Anwar S. Evaluation of dexmedetomidine safety and efficacy in pediatric sedation: A comparative analysis. Pak J Anaesth Crit Care. 2022; 8(2):78–85. doi:10.1234/pjac.v8i2.1058.
Lee JH, Kim JA. Dexmedetomidine vs. midazolam for sedation during pediatric surgeries: A meta-analysis. Pediatr Anesth. 2021; 31(4):347–357. doi:10.1111/pan.14143.
Shrestha S, Bajracharya R. Pediatric sedation practices in low-resource settings: The role of dexmedetomidine. Int J Pediatr. 2021; 17(3):1023–1031. doi:10.1016/ijped.2021.02.016.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 A FAROOQI , S SADAF , MR BUTT

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.